Mohammed Khan v Elutions Ltd — 2025

This was a reserved interim relief judgment by Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston, heard by CVP in London Central on 27 November 2025. No oral evidence was heard. The tribunal said the application was brought under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 and related to the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996. It recorded that the claim form also included an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, but that point was not relevant for the application.

The tribunal summarised the background as follows. Mohammed Khan had been employed by Elutions Ltd since 17 April 2017 as an Intelligent Enterprise Solutions Engineer on a salary of £18,000 a year. He had raised concerns about pay below the National Minimum Wage from late 2019 onwards, repeated those concerns in July 2023 and January 2025, made a complaint to HMRC on 5 March 2025, and his union sent an open grievance email on 7 March 2025. The Pensions Regulator had written to him in January and February 2025 saying the respondent had not paid contributions due in 2021. The respondent later acknowledged an NMW underpayment, revoked the claimant's system access on 1 April 2025, and the claimant resigned on 9 September 2025 citing non-payment of wages as the last straw.

Applying the interim relief authorities it cited, including Taplin, Sarfraz, Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, Hancock v Ter-Berg and Steer v Stormsure, the tribunal held that it was likely the claimant would establish protected disclosures about NMW underpayment and pension contribution failures, and that those disclosures were made in the public interest on a reasonable belief. It also held that it was likely the respondent had been in repudiatory breach by failing to pay at least the NMW over a number of years, failing to make pension contributions, removing system access without notice, and failing to pay August 2025 wages. The tribunal did not treat the alleged promise of a £27,000 salary increase or the proposed performance improvement plan as likely repudiatory breaches at this stage.

The judge further held that the claimant was likely to show he resigned in response to the last straw of non-payment of wages, that he had not affirmed the contract, and that there was a sufficient causal link between the protected disclosures and the respondent's later conduct. The respondent's own correspondence was treated as linking the lockout to the HMRC complaint, and the judge rejected the respondent's characterisation of the lockout as garden leave. The application succeeded, and the tribunal made a continuation of employment order under section 129(9)(b) ERA 1996 requiring payment of outstanding monthly salary for August, September, October and November 2025 at a rate based on £12.21 per hour for a 37.5-hour week, together with re-enrolment into the pension scheme and back payment of employer contributions, subject to normal deductions.